Diana: The Most Beautiful or Famous Woman of the 20th Century?
 

A poster in the wedding section said that it was almost impossible to take a bad picture of Princess Diana. Remember Princess Michael's quote about her, "she would look good in a sack," which is usually illustrated with a picture of Princess Diana looking enchanting in a big green raincoat. Even in the pictures of her in childhood, teens, and pre-engagement, she always looked pretty. What is it about her face, eyes, nose, hair, etc. that made her photograph well so consistently?

P.S. I'm kind of new, but I've been reading these boards for a while and I looked through the old posts for anything similar before posting this new thread. Hope it's ok :flowers:

I don't think you can ask 'why' someone is photogenic. You are photogenic, or you are not photogenic.

I have seen unflattering pictures of the late Princess as well, together with a period of less succesfull clothing and hairstyle. But the media also had a sort of self-censorship: they pick the best pictures of a hyped glamorous Princess who is a megaseller. They will not want to slaughter this chicken with golden eggs, as is the Dutch saying. So only publish pictures which fit in the framework of "Once upon a time, there was a kindergarten nanny whom became the world's most glamorous person".

When the media have created a negative image of a person, they will try to find pictures 'to fit' in that hyped image: Camzilla the Rottweiller versus the Sleeping Beauty.

When Camilla married, suddenly the media turned and praise sounded for the 'miraculous metamorphosis'. Ach ja.... try to see through the machinations of the media moguls.

First of all welcome. :flowers: Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder, people see what they want to see, to some extent.
Henri M you have, IMO, hit the nail, squarely on the head. :flowers:

Daffodil is right,I also think that Princess Di was really photogenic, no doubts about that..For sure she had bad pictures in her lifetime but I dont think that she looked painfully ugly with those.I like her photos before her marriage to Prince Charles and their first years together..Diana was so beautiful during her early 20's..I like her big blue eyes, her shy stare, and chubby red cheeks..She looked very innocent and pretty,her youthful glow shone on her..Even in her 30's she still looked fine but her early 1980's looks were her best and I would agree to this quote on a magazine commenting on her wedding that--" It was almost impossible to take a bad picture of Diana."

in my country we said when a person in like diana that ''have angel'' and it's right, diana have angel, charisma, some special in her face and in her eyes

Diana had some very good physical qualities, and she knew how to make the most of them.

She actually had a fairly large and crooked nose, and her face was not symmetrical because of the nose and also the placement of her eyes. https://img.timeinc.net/time/time100/...main_diana.jpg

However everything - face and body - was in good proportion. Her eyes were large and pretty and she had good teeth, and when she smiled her very lovely smile she radiated a combination of classic beauty and vulnerability and sex appeal that was very engaging indeed.

Her years of dance training had given her the ability to move well and she knew how to stand and walk well and pose for the photographers. She worked very hard at keeping her body in excellent condition, and made sure she was always well groomed.

The whole package looked very nice and photographed well.

She was very tall, thin (for whatever reason) beautifully coiffed and had excellent bone structure (other than the nose) and the classic blond/blue/rosy english coloring. This photographs much better than short/stocky/swarthy...not that that coloring isnt lovely in person too! I also think that she had a certain sparkle to her which came across...perhaps sense of humor?

I agree about the sparkle. I was actually planning on using the word in my description of her smile, but left it out inadvertantly. :smile:

Princess Diana was very photogenic. For me personally seeing a bad picture of her was rare. Diana had a crooked nose but her style, beauty, and grace made up for that. She had that beauty that star quality or that sparkle as Scooter mentioned. That attracted many people towards her.

Rosalyn,
I am curious what you mean by her eyes. Were they not level or something? Or is that even possible?
I am a big fan of Diana's and have looked at MANY pictures of her. I always like to see something different!
Tenngirl

The 'Stuart' nose I recall 'it' being associated with ;) :smile:

Absolutely correct. Nobody would buy a magazine with an ungly cover. They would buy a magazine with a celebrity in "a bad moment, falling down, or whatever else" but not simply a bad hairdo.

But fo0r Princess Diana, the photogenie I think it was because she was nice, but she knew how to "face" the cameras. Even if she was not smiling, she knew how to "look" at people, she was "communicating" with them. It is a gift, but also she "worked" on his gift.
When you have a talent and you also work on this, you become very very good.

I don't think Diana would have "bloomed" the way she did had she not been a member of the Royal Family. The media turned her into a "Super Star"

Indeed you are correct Henri. The media influences by either positive or negative pictures. They take negative pictures of people or events to sway public opinion about events or people. The media liked Diana and they made a lot of money by her photos, so they made it a point to put out a positive picture.

Response to Marec: I agree with you. If she had married someone other than Prince Charles, she probably would have still gotten involved in various charities and would have been well liked. If she had married a titled man I have no doubt she would have made her mark in British society. You can't help but notice that some people just stand out in a crowd.

Agree with Skydragon, you couldn't have said it better Henri M! You made all the points to be made here, i.e. beauty is what we see in it, and the media played a critical part in showing Diana's most flattering side in order to create an image that would sell, sell, sell magazines indefinitely. To that last point, I think they succeeded.

If she had married anyone other than Charles, nobody outside of her social circle would have heard of her.

The opportunity to be well known for any involvement with charities would not have arisen. Charities need royal patrons or at the least celebrities. I have asked this before, Apart from those who knew her, had anyone even heard about Diana or any of her family before her involvement with Charles? :flowers:

Diana was a beauitiful woman and she knew how to perform in front of cameras since she was young. I will call it as a gift or a nature. But I agree that the media played an crucial role in pushing her into a superstar role in order to sell magzines and newspapers.And Diana was very lucky because she was the sole young royal crown princess at that time. So the foucus was always on her because she was young, beautiful, fame and rich. It is what the world likes.

Well, no, not of Diana-but I would think that a number of people in England knew who Earl Spencer was, even if he wasn't 'famous'.

If she had married anyone other than Charles, she, in all likelihood, would have become like her paternal grandmother-supportive of local charities, and well known in her own community. (The non royal/non celebrity folk CAN be involved with charities without being patron.) But. well known across the world? No.

'Ordinary' people may have read about him occasionally, but many wouldn't have known that he had any daughters, again without Charles dating one of them.Lady Cynthia was hardly known for her support of charities, she was hardly know at all outside the court circle, ask Joe public who she was and most people would not have a clue. As you say anyone can be involved in charities, but do any of us know the name of all the tireless workers. :smile: